Posted on 12/17/2004 5:12:06 PM PST by Former Military Chick
We are still fighting the war are we not? That is the problem.
That is how all "routine" official correspondence is signed. The Secretary's or President's personal signature is reserved for those things that he personally drafts and signs himself. Personnel matters are not generally among those things.
You are not an occupying power until you have the formal surrender from the other side. Until then you are merely an invader. That is international law you consumate stupid ass.
Stir and swallow down what is left of your intelligence and pride:
Article 42 of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land [2] affirms: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends...where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” As recognized in a U.S. Army text addressing this provision, “Article 42...emphasizes the primacy of FACT as the test of whether or not occupation exists.” [3] The Army text adds: “Article 43 of the Hague Regulations continues the theme of the traditional law with its provision for a clear transfer of authority: ‘The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant....’” [4]
Generally, the responsibility of the United States to restore law and order and public life in areas under effective control of its military is reflected in Article 43 of the Annex to the Hague Convention of 1907, which requires that the occupying power “shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” [11]
Well, please make up your mind. If we are still fighting the war because there is still a significant armed opposition to our presence, then we have not established the prerequisites to impose our mandate on the country so we are not the occupying power, but merely a power contending for that role.
When we took a town - we were the occupying power. Our authority and responsibility as such began right there and then.
The resistance came much later - because of incompetence by Rumsfeld.
" Until the insurgents have been supressed we are merely a combatant in country and not an occupier."
What rubbish. Why do so many on this forum have such a problem with distinguishing between a conventional war against a nation state, and a guerilla war. When we launched the invasion against Iraq we were in a conventional war against a soverign government. Saddam's regime was crushed. His army and its command structure is disbanded. The US sponsored administration now owns the instruments of state. Conventional war over. We are now in a guerilla war against a rag bag of many disparate groups, some better organised than others. Broadly they are in three groups; Digruntled Ba'athists (remenants of the old state who cannot stand what they have lost), some islamofascists (bring it on, better they fight there than over here) and some old fashioned good for nothing opportunistic bandits. Maintaining law and order is key to winning a guerilla war. Without law and order there will be no respect for the new instruments of state (Iraqi police, army, courts etc). Clearly, defeating the insurgents is number one priority. However, without helping the new Iraqi administration get the rest of civil society in order on the 'normal law and order' side, the insurgents will thrive and recruit. Loose sight of that, you loose the war.
Historically soldiers and always understood that you have to fight in both types of war, and you fight in two different ways. From before the Romans to Vietnam. I think in the 70s and 80s so much focus was on a military preparing for the big war against the USSR that the thinking about how you fight guerilla wars was put down the list. I imagine it has gone right back up the list now!
We (the UK) had this dillema for many, many years in Northern Ireland. There are no quick solutions.
" Until the insurgents have been supressed we are merely a combatant in country and not an occupier."
What rubbish. Why do so many on this forum have such a problem with distinguishing between a conventional war against a nation state, and a guerilla war. When we launched the invasion against Iraq we were in a conventional war against a soverign government. Saddam's regime was crushed. His army and its command structure is disbanded. The US sponsored administration now owns the instruments of state. Conventional war over. We are now in a guerilla war against a rag bag of many disparate groups, some better organised than others. Broadly they are in three groups; Digruntled Ba'athists (remenants of the old state who cannot stand what they have lost), some islamofascists (bring it on, better they fight there than over here) and some old fashioned good for nothing opportunistic bandits. Maintaining law and order is key to winning a guerilla war. Without law and order there will be no respect for the new instruments of state (Iraqi police, army, courts etc). Clearly, defeating the insurgents is number one priority. However, without helping the new Iraqi administration get the rest of civil society in order on the 'normal law and order' side, the insurgents will thrive and recruit. Loose sight of that, you loose the war.
Historically soldiers and always understood that you have to fight in both types of war, and you fight in two different ways. From before the Romans to Vietnam. I think in the 70s and 80s so much focus was on a military preparing for the big war against the USSR that the thinking about how you fight guerilla wars was put down the list. I imagine it has gone right back up the list now!
We (the UK) had this dillema for many, many years in Northern Ireland. There are no quick solutions.
Sorry for posting the above twice!
It may have always been the case I just notice it to the extreme now.
Lincoln fired many a general before he got to Grant.
You seem to have tripped on your own sword.
Rumsfeld has to fight dead-enders in Iraq and dead-enders here in the US. It sounds like you are one of the guys made "redundant" by the new rules of war, and yes war has changed radically since the fusion of real time intelligence situational awareness and precision strike.
You're piling on Rumsfeld too?
This is the most ridiculous thing to get incensed over I've seen yet.
There are no new rules of war.
Not a damn thing. Rumsfeld is the best SECDEF this country has ever had. Period.
Lots of said princes started out in the infantry. I don't know if you've seen Hack lately, dressed up like a French poet, complete with black turtleneck and wire glasses. I'd say he's been soaking in perfume for well over a decade now.
Much respect for his time spent on the line. No respect for his ego driven descent into absurdity.
Nothing. The Secretaries of Defense, or War, have not traditionally written these letters. It's been the duty of the unit commander to do so, since he was there and had personal knowledge of said event. Rummy was doing more than customary, and now he's being roasted for it. Ironically, had he done less, there would be no call for complaint.
Bwahahaaa!!!!! Now I know you are a dead-ender.
Why is it that so few folks around here can get this point. Some are obvious dead-enders like ol' Destro a few posts back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.